Benchmark: jQuery vs Vanilla JS Speed Test - CNC

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.slim.min.js"></script>
<div id="target">Hello World</div>

Tests:

jQuery
for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { $('#target').append($('<div />').addClass('test-div')); }
VanillaJS
for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const e = document.createElement('div'); e.className = 'test-div'; document.getElementById('target').appendChild(e); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
VanillaJS

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that contains two test cases: jQuery vs Vanilla JS Speed Test - CNC. Each test case has a unique name, description, script preparation code, and HTML preparation code.

**Script Preparation Code and HTML Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is empty for both test cases, which means that the script will be loaded from an external source (as seen in the HTML preparation code).

For jQuery, the HTML preparation code includes a reference to jQuery's CDN (Content Delivery Network), which loads the jQuery library.

For Vanilla JS, there is no additional library loaded, as it relies on the browser's native DOM API.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare the performance of using jQuery versus Vanilla JS for a specific task: appending 10,000 HTML elements to an element with the id "target".

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

Using jQuery:

Pros:

1. **Easier to write code**: jQuery provides a simpler syntax for DOM manipulation.
2. **Browser compatibility**: jQuery supports older browsers that don't have native support for modern web APIs.

Cons:

1. **Performance overhead**: jQuery adds an extra layer of abstraction, which can introduce performance overhead.
2. **Library size and dependencies**: jQuery is a large library with many dependencies, which can increase the overall page load time.

Using Vanilla JS:

Pros:

1. **Native browser support**: Modern browsers have excellent native support for web APIs, making them faster and more efficient.
2. **No additional library size or dependencies**: No extra library needs to be loaded, reducing page load times.

Cons:

1. **Steeper learning curve**: Vanilla JS requires a deeper understanding of the underlying web APIs.
2. **Browser compatibility issues**: Older browsers might not have native support for certain features.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used as a library to simplify DOM manipulation. Its primary purpose is to provide a convenient interface for working with the Document Object Model (DOM).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

Neither of the test cases uses any special JavaScript features or syntax that would be unique to these two approaches.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to add more test cases, some alternatives could include:

1. Using a different DOM library like React or Angular.
2. Comparing performance with other programming languages, such as C++ or Rust (using WebAssembly).
3. Adding more complex scenarios, such as using asynchronous code or working with larger datasets.

These additional tests would provide a more comprehensive view of the performance characteristics of JavaScript libraries and approaches in different contexts.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery vs Vanilla JS Speed Test - CNC (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs VanillaJS

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

VanillaJS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):